On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, bmanning(a)karoshi.com wrote:
IPv6 is/should be transparent to the enduser. Any other approach will result in serious questions about your ability to handle customer relations.
I don't disagree. However, as Steve pointed out in a different reply :
PS: there are some ISPs in this country that are in a position to route v6 natively across their networks, they just lack resource to turn this into a real product, maybe helping these people could be a first step as well - i.e, want v6 transit, hut these people down, call them up and tell them you will switch if they offer you native v6 - soon enough they will allocate resource to make it a reality as they will be able to see there is support. Until this point, forget it. They have more important things to do that WILL bring them in revenue.
I probably misrepresented the argument in my initial post. ISPs want revenue. If you're prepared to pay for IPv6 as a standalone product, great. If you're prepared to move your business to them because they offer IPv6 but don't charge more for it, then that's also ok. But this second case does rely on the ISP being able to provide the other services you'd want to move to them. I'm all for IPv6 being deployed. The only way it's going to happen is for big customers of big ISPs to say either "I'll pay for IPv6" or "I'll take my business to a competitor who offers IPv6". Endless hand-waving and soapboxing on this mailing list isn't going to achieve much folks. Waving sales commissions (or lack thereof) at sales/account managers of the ISPs might. --David